Plaintiff raised three arguments in support of her motion to vacate an arbitration award: “(1) that the arbitrator exceed his powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon her claims was not made; (2) that the arbitrator acted in manifest disregard of the applicable law and in violation of clear public policy; and (3) that there was an evident material mistake in the description of the facts and evidence presented at the hearing with respect to [Plaintiff’s] claims.” Ultimately, the Court found her arguments “did not overcome the substantial deference that courts must give to an arbitrator’s decision on review.”
The Court specifically looked at the applicable law under both the ADEA and the age-discrimination provisions of the THRA, finding Plaintiff was unable to “demonstrate that the arbitrator misinterpreted the law – much less that the arbitrator exceeded his authority such that [Plaintiff] is entitled to vacatur of the arbitrator’s judgment.” Moreover, “[t]he fact that the arbitrator chose to weigh [a witness’s] detailed testimony more heavily than [another witness’s] vague answers in concluding that a valid non-discriminatory reason existed for [Plaintiff’s] lesser pay does not amount to an action in excess of the arbitrator’s power, a ‘manifest disregard of the law,’ or an ‘evident material mistake’ in the facts of the award. It does not even amount to a ‘serious error,’ a case in which we would still be bound to uphold the arbitrator’s decision.”
Marshall v. SSC Nashville Operating Co., LLC d/b/a SAVA Senior Care and Greenhills Health Rehabilitation Center, No. 16-5751 (6th Cir. April 18, 2017)
This post written by Nora A. Valenza-Frost.
See our disclaimer.